Week 24: Mar 18, 2012

Having pointed out to his readers that they have an anointing and know all things, John defines who cannot be trusted.

Study

f. Why John Writes (2:21-27)

ii. Those who deny are the liars (2:22-23)

22-3a – Who is a liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Messiah?[1] The person who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. No one who denies the Son has the Father.

Who is a liar is a rhetorical question that draws out a key distinction between believers and those who left. John does this with three phrases centered around literally: “The denying” (ἀρνούμενος).

the person who denies that Jesus is the Messiah

– The first “denying” is key for it is what characteristic of a non-believer. This is more than just a matter of the words; it goes much deeper to the core meaning. Goes to the nature, person, and work of Jesus.

The person who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist

– The second “denying” functions as a restatement and amplification of the first. There are several things going on here. The first is that the Son and the Father are being equated. To deny one is to deny the other. Second Jesus is being linked to the Son. This may seem obvious, but it is important to remember that the heretics saw divisions between Jesus, the Christ, and the Father. This is what separates groups that are Christian from those who claim to be. I do not believe that this includes those in other religions, for the context here is those who left the church. Unlike Jews and pagans (or today, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, etc.), those who left claimed to be the true followers of Christ. Today this would include groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. They claim to be true followers of Christ, but they deny the basic biblical teaching concerning the nature, person, and/or work of Jesus.

No one who denies the Son has the Father.

– The third “denying” is a summary of proto-Gnostic belief and here John is applying these statements to his critics.

Questions and Discussion

As can be seen from the shortness of the study, there was a lot of discussion this week and more than I can summarize here. Most of it centered on how and where we should draw the line between Christians and non-Christians in terms of teaching. From 1 John it is pretty clear the dividing line is the person of Jesus Christ. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses have a view of Jesus that differs significantly from that in the Bible.

For example, while John 1 says that Jesus was “the word” and in verse one says “the word was God” the Jehovah Witnesses, attempt to avoid this by translating this as “the word was a god” and then goes on to try and diminish this even further by claiming that “a god” does not really mean what is says, but really means something lesser than a god.

There was also a lot of discussion on how this applies to groups whose view of Jesus is ok, but where we have other disagreements. While many Christians are fairly tolerant of differences such as pre, mid, or post tribulation, many Christians have other beliefs they think are really important. For some differing views of creation are seen as disqualifying. Perhaps one of the most difficult such views centers on the questions about the Bible such as inerrancy. While I hold to inerrancy, I do not believe that those who question inerrancy are automatically not Christians. For example, I have a friend who does not accept inerrancy, but whose commitment and relationship to Christ are solid. In fact, I have asked him and he cannot give me any specific errors in the Bible, but he is just not willing to say that the Bible is inerrant.

In short I am not as concerned about most theological views, as I am about two things: What do they say about Jesus, and how is there walk with the Lord.

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:

[1] 2:22 Or Christ

Paul L. LaClair’s post is here. His comments are in blue

“Elgin, it’s not default thinking. It’s empirical thinking. It’s responding to what works.”

Yet the vast majority of your reply only further demonstrates the contrary. Since you are leaving the discussion I will simply respond to a few points. If you think I skipped something important just let me know and I will address it.

“That’s right but the difference is that science can take the next step into application.”

There are several key problems here with the word “application.” For one thing there are significant areas of science that have no application, at least not currently. In addition much, if not most of scientific knowledge precedes any application. Thus making application a prerequisite for any knowledge would invalidate at least parts of science.

In addition it is unclear what are the limits this application. What kind of application must there be for knowledge to be consider legitimate? Then there are the areas of knowledge, such as history, which are commonly accepted as legitimate, but for which the concept of application is, at best, unclear. Can we legitimately say that Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States? What would be the application of such knowledge?

The key difference between naturalism and my view is that I focus more on the method of knowledge. Thus applications confirm the usefulness of the method, not just the results. This is an important distinction for it allows me to talk about knowledge in areas such as history, where there is little or no application, but where the methods can still be applied.

“It isn’t just that “God” is unproven, it’s unprovable according to all we know.”

This goes back to my comments at the beginning of our discussion concerning the concept of proof. But in any event, the real point is that “to all we know” really means, “to all the naturalist believes” and is again a classic example of default thinking.

ME: “Yet, I provided evidence, in the form of a rational argument,”

YOU:” Because that’s not evidence. Read your statement again. Where’s the evidence?”

This basically demonstrates my point. That which does not support you, you simply ignore. Whether you choose to accept it or not a rational argument is evidence. Reject this and you reject the core of the scientific method upon which your view depends. Your selective acceptance of reason, i.e., you accept it when it reaches the conclusion you like, is hardly a rational position, but instead just more evidence of the flaws within naturalism.

Concerning your answer to the argument that you requested.

“1. Knowing that cause and effect as we understand them lead to a seemingly inescapable paradox, you posit an answer based on a series of assumptions.”

It is only a paradox for naturalism. There is no paradox at all for my view, and in fact this argument is quite consistent with my view. While they are clearly assumptions, they are the assumptions of naturalism, which is the point of the argument. The only real problem with this argument for the naturalist is that it points to a conclusion that naturalism refuses to accept.

“Maybe there is something about the nature of space-time, and therefore causation that we don’t yet know,”

I already pointed this out in an early note. While true, it is irrelevant to the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that the evidence we currently have points to something naturalism says cannot exist. Your refusal to accept what, in any other context would be an obvious conclusion, clearly demonstrates that naturalism is inconsistent. Naturalism claims to be empirical relying only on the evidence, but then rejects the current evidence in favor of some hypothetical future possibility. At this point the naturalist abandons the scientific evidence in favor of faith and hope. Faith that naturalism is true, and hope that some evidence that avoids this may be found in the future. Again this is fine. Naturalists would certainly not be the first people in history to hold on to their beliefs in spite of the evidence to the contrary, but it does show that your claims to be open to evidence to the contrary are clearly false, and so perhaps you will not be so quick to ridicule those who disagree with you in the future.

“That’s a more likely explanation, since that has been the course of scientific discovery to date.”

Actually the course has been the opposite. For 200 years, naturalist based science has consistently attempted to avoid any concept of a start to the universe, probably because of the implications. From early theories of a steady state universe, to more recent theories that postulated various form of a cycling universe, every attempt so far has had to be discarded as more evidence came in. The course has been opposite of the one you describe. In fact if we just go by the “course of scientific discovery to date” that would be a much better reason to call into question any new theory that the universe did not have a beginning. All previous attempts to make this claim were subsequently overthrown by the evidence, so why shouldn’t any new theory suffer the same fate?

“2. Out of all the possibilities one could imagine, you settle arbitrarily on a conscious creator.”

Once again you show that you cannot squarely face the argument as presented, but must instead change it into something you are more comfortable with. In this case so you can divert the argument onto your beliefs on the origins of religion, beliefs which, btw, cannot be verified. Again the argument says nothing about consciousness one way or the other, and so this attempt at refutation is no more valid than the last time you raised it. In short, you cannot refute an argument that does not mention consciousness, by talking about consciousness. You need to deal with the argument, not some straw man of your own creation.

“We naturalists aren’t in a quandary, as you claim. We merely observe that there are questions we can’t answer yet”

This is not only a statement of hope, it is a statement of denial, as the only way to not be in a “quandary,” or at least think that you are not, is simply to ignore the argument. Yet this is inconsistent with the principles of naturalism as you have stated them. You can ignore the problem the argument reveals, but that does not make it go away, it just demonstrates your claim to simply follow the evidence is false.

“if you do, we naturalists will listen and alter our views based on the new evidence – if that ever happens. Y’all refuse to do the same, which is intellectually dishonest.”

Except that when I demonstrated that the assumptions of naturalism are inconsistent with the best scientific evidence we have, you ignore the evidence and hope things will change in the future. You talk about evidence and reason, but have repeatedly show that you will quickly discard them when they do not support your belief in naturalism. So who is being intellectually dishonest?

“I don’t mean to be rude but what you’re doing is not interesting or productive.”

That is fine, as there really is no place left for the discussion to go. I and others have pointed out a number of fallacies and errors in your claims, which for the most part you have just ignored. To move forward, you would need to actually address these fallacies and errors, providing either explanations for why they are not fallacious or in error, which for many would not be possible; or attempt to restate the arguments so as to remove the fallacies and errors. However, instead of refuting or correcting them, you have basically denied that naturalism can be rationally evaluation. This not only conflicts with your claim on the importance of verification, but make further discussion difficult at best, unless you resort to repetition of previously refuted argument, which you have done.

The only other way to more forward would be for you to face the implications of the argument based on origin I cited, but to do this would be to acknowledge the fatal flaw in naturalism, which you clearly cannot do, for to do this would be to abandon naturalism. Instead you have appealed to hope. This is fine, but it against precludes further discussion because I cannot know what may or may not be discovered in the future, and you have again precluded naturalism from being evaluated. But realize that this is a hope that runs contrary to you claims, and is in fact exactly what you are so critical of others for doing.

But, in any event, I do what to thank you for an interesting discussion.

Week 23:  Mar 11, 2012

Having just contrasted the position of his reader with that of his opponents, John returns to comforting his readers by clarifying why he is writing to them.

Study

f.        Why John Writes (2:21-27)

i.      Premise: You Know all things (2:20-1)

20 – You have an anointing from the Holy One and know all things.[1]

an anointing

–          John returns his focus back to his readers by point out how they are distinctive.  But exactly what does he mean by anointing?   The Greek word here (χρῖσμα)  is a noun and it only occurs here and in verse 27 in the NT.  The verbal form is found in several places.   In Luke 4:18, Acts 4:27, 10:38, and Heb 1:9 it refer to Jesus being anointed by God.   In 2 Cor 1:21-22 it is used in relation to us.  Now the one who makes us—and you as well—secure in union with the Messiah  and has anointed us is God, ²²who has placed his seal on us and has given us the Spirit in our hearts as a down payment. The word literally means to, mark or touch lightly will oil to indicate some calling.   Louw Nida gives the meaning of the noun form of the word as an “assignment. ”  While in the Greek translation of the OT it is used in 1 Sam 9:16 where Saul is to be anointed King.

–          As to what John means, unfortunately, this is where our lack of knowledge shows.  We know that later Christians and Gnostics both had ritual anointing with oil.   Later Gnostics claimed they had a special anointing (again tied by to their secret knowledge), but there is no evidence of this during 1^st century.   As for the other mentions of  “anointing” in NT,   The Greek word in these cases  is ἤλειφον not χρῖσμα and refers to the physical application of perfume or oil as in the following:

• to care for the body  – Mt 6:17 – when fasting
• the sick – Mk 6:13, James 5:14,
• to prepare the dead for burial  – Mk 16:1
• to honor a Guest –  Lk 7:38, Lk 7:46, Jn 11:2, Jn 12:3

The use by John here is most likely figurative. It is possible that John is using a play on words as the word Christ (Χριστός) is related and literally means the anointed one.  In which case, the antichrists then would be the anti-anointed ones.

–          In terms of the overall meaning of the verse, there are some strong parallel to the Gospel of John

1 John 14:17 –  He is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor recognizes him. But you recognize him, because he lives with you and will be in you.

2 John 15:26 – When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.

3 John 16:13 – Yet when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own accord, but will speak whatever he hears and will declare to you the things that are to come.

–          So this leaves us with the following options:

1 This is referring to a ritual that was performed. Again there is no evidence for such a ritual in the first century.   But there is a deeper problem here.    Those who left would have done the same ritual. So this would not really set them apart.

2 Because of the parallels with Gospel of John , many conclude that the anointing is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

3 Others see this as the word of God, i.e., the teaching handed down by the apostles and prophets that was stressed at the beginning of the letter.   This fits the broader context nicely – i.e. that it teaches us the truth (v27).   It also has the advantage of being objective, i.e., we can test by the Word of God.

4 Finally it is possible to see this as a combination of 2 and 3.   It is God’s Word, not as preached, but as receive by the work of the Holy Spirit.

–          My view:

While 4 has a lot of merit, I believe that the focus on the identity of the anointing somewhat misses John’s point.  Many commentators see John as still arguing against his opponents and this is yet another argument.  But I don’t believe that the main issue here is distinguishing Christians from those who left, but the security of salvation.

In context, John has just said that those who left were never part of us.  This shows that the security of salvation was an issue.   After all, a new Christian who had just seen the church split might very well wonder if it could happen to them, maybe it could happen to them.  Maybe they are not really part of the church either.  It is this context that John mentions the anointing.   It is interesting to note alone these lines that the only other use of χρῖσμα apart from Christ occurs in 2 Cor 1:21-22, a passage  which also is focused on the security of the believer.  While the others left, showing that they were not really believers in the first place, John’ reader remained.    John 14:23-24   If anyone loves me, he will keep my word. Then my Father will love him, and we will go to him and make our home within him. 24The one who does not love me does not keep my words.

from the Holy One

–          While this could be God the Father, it is more likely Jesus following the pattern of John 6:69 where Peter says, “Besides, we have believed and remain convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

and know all things.

–          There is a minor textual issue  at this point with some manuscripts reading  and know all things. (πάντα)  while others have and all of you know (πάντες)

1 In favor of and know all things is that this reading has a little broader textual evidence.  The problem is that it results in an incomplete sentence for “to know” requires an object (i.e, what is known).  The NIV handles this by supplying the world “truth” drawing it from the context of the next verse.

2 In favor of and all of you know is that it is a complete sentence and it is the slightly older reading.

Still the evidence is pretty balanced and it comes down to which you think was more likely, that a scribe thought that  “and all of you know”  needed something as in “… all of you know _______”  and changed this to .. and know all things. Or, is it more likely that a scribe though that to “and know all things” made us too much like Christ and changed this to read “and all of you know.”

As is always the case with such issues, there is no real theological point at stake, only how we understand this particularly passage.  This is abundantly clear when we realize that the reading and know all things is very similar to  2:27  while and all of you know is similar to  2:21.

–          Either way John is making a statement about our position.

1  You know lies are not in the truth

21 – I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because lies don’t come from truth.

–          John again emphasizes that that his condemnations are not directed at them, and he affirms there standing in the faith.  This is emphasized in both a negative and then a positive fashion.  What they know is the truth.   Flow of the argument over the last two verses is:

1. 1. They have an anointing of the Christ
   2. This anointing have given them knowledge
   3. Lies do not come from the truth.
   4. What they know is the truth.

Questions and Discussion

The discussion this week centered on the role of evidence.  If the anointing is understood as simply the Holy Spirit, there is the problem of subjectivity.   For example, Mormons when ask about their faith routinely talk about their testimony which centers on a subjective experience.  They believe this experience to be the Holy Spirit.  The problems with this immediately appear when their testimony is compared to the testimony of others that conflicts with theirs.  How could anyone know they were correct?  Mine, is an example of a conflicting testimony.  While their testimony says that Mormonism is true, mine is that it is false.   We cannot both be correct, and thus at least one of us must be wrong when it comes to what we think the Holy Spirit is telling us. This is where the word of God comes in, for it is an objective measure by which we can compare.

When we do compare, Mormonism to the teaching of the Bible, it quickly falls short, and thus  it is no wonder that Mormons have to fall back on dubious claims that  parts of the Bible have been removed or changed so as to obscure the teachings they think should be there.  Unfortunately for the Mormons, the text is very  well known and the minor difference that do exist among the thousands of manuscript are like the ones discussed in this week’s class and are not even close to the types of changes that their theories would need.

The bottom line is that Christians need not fear as we have a mountain of objective evidence that supports our beliefs and the guiding of the Holy Spirit.

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:

[1] 2:20 Other mss. read and all of you know

Week 22: Mar 4, 2012

We left off last time in the middle of John’s discussion of his opponents and what was meant by his use of the term “the last hour.”

Study

e. Their Position (2:18-27)

i. Antichrists a sign of the time (2:18-19)

18 – Little children, it is the last hour. Just as you heard that an antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.

Just as you heard that an antichrist is coming,

– The word Antichrist is a source of great confusion. The problem is not in translating from Greek to English as antichrist is simply a transliteration of ἀντίχριστος (antichristos). The problem is in translating from the 1^st century to the 21^st. John is the only one to use this term in the New Testament. Jesus warned about False Christs (ψευδόχριστοι – Mk 13:22; Mt 24:24) and he spoke of the abomination of desolation (Mk 13:14). Paul warned about the the man of lawlessness (ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας — 2 THess 2:3). It is also possible that the Book of Revelations had already been written with its references to the Beast and/or False Prophet (Rev 13:19-20). Whatever the reference, John is referring to an antichrist that will to come at some time in the future.

so now many antichrists have appeared.

– Just as there will be an Antichrist, now there are many antichrists. The view is that these will be lesser ones leading up to the real antichrist. They share the same spirit and these antichrists will be the precursor to the real thing. But this is where the problem begins. Over the last 2000 years we have added a lot of baggage to the term antichrist, particularly once Hollywood jumped and made movies like The Omen. But little if any of this was in John’s mind or the mind of his readers. So we must try to understand the term as John intended, which refers to those against or opposed to Christ.

This is how we know it is the last hour.

– It is the presences of the antichrists that tells us we are in the last hour. Returning to last week’s question about the meaning of “the last hour” we can note the following:

• It cannot be the very last hour, because then it would be the real antichrist instead of the precursors.
• The presents of the antichrists must be exclusive of the time period “the last hour.”

Given this, what makes these unbelievers different from the unbelievers in other times? There have always been unbelievers that have denied and/or rebelled against God. But unlike others, these unbelievers claim to be followers of Christ, when in reality they oppose him and in that they corrupt the faith. The “last hour” then is that period of time where some unbelievers will cloak there unbelief by claiming to be true followers or Christ.

Looking at the options from last week, John it would seem, meant either Option A (that age from the ministry of Christ to the Second Coming) or possibly C (referring more the quality of the age rather than the time period). It is important to note that John is not talking about WHEN the second coming will happen, he is talking about the period of deception leading up to it and he is point out that this period had already started.

i. They Left us (2:19-20)

19 – They left us, but they were not part of us, for if they had been part of us, they would have stayed with us. Their leaving made it clear that none of them was really part of us.

They left us

– John’s readers have known who he was talking about from the very beginning, now we find out. The Greek is ambiguous (ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν) . This could refer to origin – us being the place they were from, or it could refer to membership –they had belonged to us. But either way this was a church split. They were once a part of the church but they left.

First century churches were normally small and close so the split certainly involved friends, and very likely family members. This was the event that sparked the letter, and it helps us to understand the context that stood behind the it. These people has been in the middle of this so there was no need for John to have mentioned this at the beginning of the letter. They already knew exactly what was going on.

– It is important to note that they were not thrown out, they left. While disputes and disagreements were common in the early church people did not leave the faith. For example, in Gal 2:11 Paul wrote about his disagreement with Peter. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly wrong. In Act 15:39 the disagreement between Paul and Barnabus was so sharp that they parted ways. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. Yet while they parted ways, neither left the faith. In Rom 14: 13 Paul gives the following instruction to those who were in disagreement Therefore, let’s no longer criticize each other. The disputes in Romans 14 were over questions that still arise in the church today such as what day to meet, and what you can eat and drink. It is interesting that Paul did not seek to settle these issues, but instead told us not to be critical of those who make different choice than we do.

But in the chruch John was writting to, there was something far more fundamental than a dispute over which day we should worship on. These people departed over core doctrine—They had left the faith. But this immediately raises the question that if Christians can abandon their faith, what does that say about eternal security?

they were not part of us

– John address the issue by refuting the premise, they did none loose their salvation because never were in the faith. He does this by first making a claim, and then gives a logical argument to support it.

– Technically his argument is a hypothetical syllogism of the form Modus Tollens. This is a deductive argument, which means if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed. If we put it into classical form:

If they had been part of us, then they would have stayed with us.
They did not stay with us.�
Therefore they were not part of us.

Questions and Discussion

The discussion this week centered a lot on the term antichrist and how applicable it is to groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Here we much be careful. As John intended the term, i.e., referring to those who claim to be follows of Christ when they really oppose him, the term would be accurate. However, that is not the common meaning of the term today. To say that Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses are antichrists would really be inaccurate without a lot of qualifications about exactly what is meant by the term. It may be accurate in the way that John used the term, but it would not be accurate given the modern understanding.

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Week 21: Feb 26, 2012

We left off last time in the middle of John’s commandment to believers not to love the world. In verse 16 John expands on what he means with this commandment.

Study

d. Our Position (2:12-17)

ii Warning: Do not love the world (2:15-17)

16 – For everything that is in the world—the desire for fleshly gratification,[1] the desire for possessions,[2] and worldly arrogance—is not from the Father but is from the world.

– John now goes on to explain what he means by not loving the world with three examples. The first two of these are marked by the word desire (επιθυμια), which refers to a strong impulse or desire (Freberg). The word is not inherently negative as it is used here, it is neutral. It can just as equally refer to a desire to do good as it does in Heb 6:11, But we want (επιθυμουμεν)each of you to continue to be diligent to the very end, in order to give full assurance to your hope.

– for fleshly gratification

The first clause is literally: The desire of the flesh. It can refer to sexual desire, but could be anything the flesh desires. The Jewish sense of this concept was for desires that focused on the self. It is putting yourself and your wants first.

As a side note: This is one of the reasons works cannot earn Salvation. Working to earn salvation is grounded in a desire for self, i.e., to earn salvation. You are working to earn benefits for yourself. Such works cannot please God. Works that are pleasing to God come from Love, love of God and Love of others, whereas working to earn salvation is grounded in love of self.

– for possessions

The second clause is literally: of the eye. It refers to a desire caused by what one sees and is ultimately desire for things: See it – Want it. The problem is that it puts things ahead of people.

– worldly arrogance (η αλαζονεια του βιου)

The third clause is literally: false pride of life. It refers to a false pride (αλαζονεια) or arrogance that is unfounded, taking a false or exaggerated sense of pride. This is not, for example, taking pride in your work. Here the pride refers to a false pride of life, or the things of life. It is a pride that forgets that everything we have comes from God. (1 Cor 11:12) If we are boasting about how good we are, how smart we are, how good our house is, or about just about anything, without recognizing that fact, we have a false pride of life.

– As noted last week, verses 15 and 16 need to be read together. The focus of these two verses is not so much on these things per se, but on the love of these things. We may have desire for fleshly gratification or possessions, or worldly arrogance, but what is our attitude about it? While this may at first seem strange, consider what Paul said in Rom 7:15 I don’t understand what I am doing. For I don’t practice what I want to do, but instead do what I hate. We might not be able to always control that we have improper desires, but we can control if we love them. We can choose to be like Paul, we can hate what we do, and strive to follow God, even if we fail from time to time.

17 – And the world and its desires are fading away, but the person who does God’s will remains forever.

– John now gives another reason why we should not love the things of the world. This world is temporary, while God is forever. If we are going to love something, we should love that which will last.

e. Their Position (2:18-27)

i. Antichrists a sign of the time (2:18)

18 – Little children, it is the last hour. Just as you heard that an antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.

Little children, here this phrase marks a change of thought. Having made our position clear, John now turns to the position of his opponents.

it is the last hour

– This is the only place this phrase occurs in the NT and this raises the question of what does John mean by it is the last hour (εσχατη ωρα εστιν)

Option A: This is the final period of History, i.e., from the ascension to the second coming. John 4:23a Yet the time is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. This phrase is thus similar to the phase “the last days” such as in Heb 1:2a has in these last days spoken to us by a Son

Option B: This is the final part (hour) of the last days, i.e., John is saying that they are very near the tribulation. According to Marshall this is the position held by most commentators. It is hard, but not impossible, to reconcile this view with the fact that it is now 2011, and this “hour” has lasted over 2000 years. John’s view can be seen as expressing the idea that Christ could come at any time. Or it is possible that John had a different view of time, a view of time that any time after the ascension is the final hour.

Option C: The phrase is referring to a quality of the current age as opposed to a time period. Along these lines it should be noted that there is no definite article (the) in the Greek text, and this could also be translated as: It is a last hour, an age marked by anticipation by Christians, and rebellion by the world.

Before we can make a decision concerning what John meant we need to look at the how John expands on this in the latter part of the verse and that is where we will pick next week.

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:

[1] 2:16 Lit. for the flesh

[2] 2:16 Lit. of the eyes

Week 20: Feb 12, 2012

Last time we saw how John, after pointing out the inconsistency between the claims and the actions of his opponents, switched to talking about his readers, talking first about “children” i.e., about all Christians. Now he continues talking to “Father” i.e., church leaders, and then “Young men” which could be members in general, but might be deacons.

Study

d. Our Position (2:12-17)

i. Our position in Christ (2:12-14)

13a – I am writing to you, fathers,
because you have known the one who
has existed from the beginning.

– Clause 1.2

Fathers – πατέρες

– This was a common term that could be used to refer to

• General Ancestors (i.e., those who came before us) : Act 7:44 Our ancestors had the Tent of Testimony in the wilderness constructed
• Mentors or Spiritual Father: 1Cor 4:15 You may have 10,000 mentors who work for the Messiah, but not many fathers. For in the Messiah Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
• Natural Fathers : Heb 12:9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers who disciplined us, and we respected them for it.
• Parents : Heb 11:23 By faith Moses was hidden by his parents for three months after he was born,
• Patriarchs : Rom 9:5 To the Israelis belong the patriarchs, and from them, the Messiah descended,
• Elders : Acts 7:2; 22:1 Stephen replied, “Listen, brothers and fathers!”

– Given the context here, I believe that the meaning of leaders is probably what John intended.

because you have known the one who has existed from the beginning.

– This passage ties back to verse 2:3 This is how we can be sure that we have come to know him. Like forgiven in the previous verse, known here is in the perfect tense, and refers to a completed action. Unlike verse 2:3, here John adds who has existed from the beginning. This is a statement of consistency and lack of change. A primary role of church leaders is to keep the members on track.

13b – I am writing to you, young people,
because you have overcome the evil one.

– Clause 1.3

Young people – νεανίσκοι

– Today it is easy to see this phase as referring to older children or perhaps teenagers. But the Bible does not really have these concepts, is has only children, adults and the elderly. In John’s day this term often referred to young adults between puberty and marriage, but could also be used to refer to a man in the prime of life. In the context here, it refers to those who are not “fathers.”

because you have overcome the evil one

– The Greek word translated overcome (νενικήκατε) means victorious, overcome, conquer. Like Forgiven and Known, it is in the perfect tense. This is something they already had done. The phase, the evil one (τὸν πονηρόν) is masculine singular, and thus points to a particular individual: Satan.

– As believers we already have overcome. Satan’s primary goal is to keep us from a saving relationship with Christ. By the very fact that we have entered into a saving relationship means that we have overcome Satan. Through the power of Christ we are victorious. Do we live as a victor?

14a – I have written to you, little children,
because you have known the Father.

– Clause 2.1

I have written – ἔγραψα

– As John begins the second half of the section he switches to aorist tense. For a discussion of the possible reasons for this, see the comments prior to verse 12 in last week’s post.

Little children – παιδία

– John also switches from τεκνία to παιδία. He elsewhere he uses the words interchangeably so change here is probably insignificant and just a stylistic change.

because you have known the Father.

– Again this is a completed action. In clause 1.1 John pointed out that their sins had been forgiven, here he reminds them that they have known the father. Together these two points encapsulates the teaching to this point. Those who confess their sins are forgiven and know God.

14b – I have written to you, fathers,
because you have known the one who
has existed from the beginning.

– Clause 2.2

– With the exception of the change from “I write” to “I have written” this is unchanged from Clause 1.2. As such it emphasizes the role of Fathers in providing consistency and lack of change.

14c – I have written to you, young people,
because you are strong
and because God’s word remains in you
and you have overcome the evil one.

– Clause 2.3

– This final clause repeats you have overcome the evil one found in the clause 1:3. But now precedes it with two additional descriptions. The first is that you are strong. We are strong in Christ and this is the reason we have overcome Satan. The second point is that God’s word remains in you. God’s word here could refer to several things. It could of course be a reference to the Bible. But it could also be a reference to Jesus as in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word… Another option is that it could be a more general reference to the God speaking to us, not only through the Bible, but through prayer. This latter view is probably what John intended. But this could be a case of deliberate ambiguity, as none of these meanings is really wrong.

– That God’s word remains in us is the reason for our strength and our ability to overcome the evil one. It is the power of the message and truth of God and the relationship we have with him that gives us the strength to overcome. If we do not feel strong perhaps it is that we are not spending enough time with God’s Word or spending enough time with God in prayer.

Looking back over these six clauses, we can summarize the points that John uses to describe Christians as:

1. We are forgiven. In the context of this letter this implies confession v 1:9.
2. We know God. In the context of this letter this implies that we obey God v 2:3.
3. We are strong.
4. We remain in God’s word.
5. We have overcome Satan.

ii. Warning: Do not love the world (2:15-17

15* – Don’t love[1] the world and the things that are in the world. If anyone persists in loving the world, the Father’s love is not in him.

– Having established his reader’s position in contrast to that of his opponents John now starts instructing them with a command.

Don’t love the world and the things that are in the world.

In context John has just set them apart from his opponents, so this is more of a warning (Don’t love), rather than a condemnation (Stop loving). But this warning immediately raises the question: What does John mean by “the world and the things that are in the world?” Some have taken this to mean that we should ignore the physical world and focus only on the spiritual. But there is a danger in this approach for it tends to lead to legalism, and in fact a lot of legalism has been grounded in verses such as this. After all, one simply needs to declare _______ to be “of the world” and they now have a “biblical” command against it!

A better approach would be to look at how John uses the term world (κόσμον). Here are some of the ways that John uses this term.

1. 1:9-10 (In Darkness) He was the true light that enlightens every person by his coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him. Yet the world did not recognize him.
2. 1:29 (in Sin) The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
3. 3:16 (Loved By God) “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.”
4. 3:19 (This Realm) And this is the basis for judgment: The light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light because their actions were evil. — note difference between world and people (men)
5. 7:7 (Evil and Hates Jesus) The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil.
6. 12:31 (ruled by Satan) Now is the time for the judgment of this world to begin. Now will the ruler of this world be thrown out.
7. 14:17 (cannot receive the Holy Spirit) He is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor recognizes him. But you recognize him, because he lives with you and will be in you.

It is also important to remember that John, following Jesus’ example, normally speaks in spiritual terms, not material terms and as a result misunderstanding over this distinction plays a large role in the Gospel. As an example, consider John 2:19-20 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will rebuild it.” ²⁰The Jews said, “This sanctuary has been under construction for 46 years, and you’re going to rebuild it in three days?”

Thus, the world in John is that part of reality that is in rebellion to God. It is in darkness and hates Jesus, and therefore cannot receive the Holy Spirit. It is ruled by Satan. Yet God loves the world and seeks to redeem the world, sending his son. He has redeemed us from the world, such that we are no longer a part of the world. Thus in John 15:19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as one of its own. But because you do not belong to the world and I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you.

If anyone persists in loving the world, the Father’s love is not in him.

– From the description above it is pretty clear that the love of God, and the love of the world are incompatible.

To fully understand this verse, it is important to consider what John says in verse 16. Unfortunately we ran out of time so this discussion will continue next week.

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:

[1] 2:15 ISV Stop Loving..

Week 19:  Feb 5, 2012

Last time we saw how John was expanding on the commandments, in particular that we are to love one another. John now demonstrates his point with another claim from his opponents. This is not really a new claim; it is similar to those he has already dealt (see 1:6-10), but here he focuses the claim a bit more, in light of the commandment to love one other and he uses it to sum up his argument so far.

Study

i. To be in the light is to love (2:9-11)

1. Claim (2:9)

a. Counter-Claim (2:10)

2. Restatement (2:11)

9 – The person who says that he is in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.

The person who says that he is in the light

– John returns to Claim/Refutation/Counter teaching pattern. Here the claim to be in the light was a key claim made by his opponents.

but hates his brother

– While they claim to be in the light, their actions tell a far different story. But just what does John mean by Hate? At first this might lead some people into a false sense of complacency. After all, they may claim, I don’t hate anyone. But this would miss John’s point. It must be remembered that John normally writes in stark terms with no middle ground. Thus he speaks of Light/darkness, Life/Death, Truth/Lie, and here Love/Hate. For John there is a sense that there is no middle ground. Yet this is more than mere black and white thinking. If we will help someone we love, but not others, then there is no real difference with being neutral and hating. Either way we don’t help. Given the importance of the commandment to love one another (2:7-8) one cannot ignore the commandment and still walk in the light.

10 – The person who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no reason for him to stumble.

– The Counter teaching

– To love one another is to live (μένει: to remain ) in the light.

and there is no reason for him to stumble.

– John expanses on the light/dark metaphor. If you are walking darkness, you are in danger of stumbling. The Greek here is somewhat ambiguous and could refer to having nothing that would cause brother to stumble. But since the context is focused on the person and not brother I think the translation, for him to stumble is best. The best way to avoid sin, is to remain in the light.

11 – But the person who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks[1] in the darkness. He does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

– Having laid out the true teaching John now recaps and expanse on the position of his opponents. There is a sense of conclusion here as he ties the various themes together as he continues the metaphor to emphasize the danger. It is one thing to be in the dark, it is another to try and walk in the darkness. It is hard in this not to see John asking “Why would you follow these people?”

because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

– This is a key point. Sin not only separates us from God, it blinds us to the truth. While his opponents may claim to have the truth, they are in darkness.

d. Our Position (2:12-17)

i. Our position in Christ (2:12-14)

– This section marks a stark change, not only in content but in style. This section is divided up into two sets of three statement with the following characteristics:

• o The first 3 statements start with “I write to you… because” (γράφω ὑμῖν,…, ὅτι – present active indicative
• o The second 3 statements start with “I wrote to you… because” (ἔγραψα ὑμῖν…, ὅτι – aorist active indicative)
• o Each section has a line written to Children (τεκνία/παιδία), to Fathers (πατέρες) and to young men (νεανίσκοι) in that order.

– This raises the following questions about this section:

• Why is this section here?
  • There are some clear links to what has been discussed so far. Thus for example, verse 2:12 – because your sins have been forgiven is very close to verse 1:9 – he forgives us for those sins. But there is also some new material (verse 13b – you have overcome the evil one) as well, which foreshadows themes that will be taken up later in the epistle.
  • There are no immediate grammatical links to what has just been discussed, except possibly that John often begins transition with “Little Children” or similar phrases.
  • Each of these statements can be seen as contrasting with John’s opponents. Each statement could be read equally as well by inserting “unlike them” just after the word because. e.g., V 12 – because [unlike them] your sins have been forgiven
  • Thus I believe that since John has written about his opponents so far in stark black and white terms he is doing two things here. First he is marking a transition from a focus on his opponents to a focus on believers, while at the same time he is making it clear that he does not see his critical statements until this point as referring to his readers.
• o Why are the two sections here so similar? / Why the change from “I write” in section 1 to “I wrote” in section 2?
  • Option 1 – Since Greek often uses repetition for emphasis, this could just be for emphasis. If this is the case, then there is no real significant change in meaning from “I write” to “I wrote.” In defense of this, both phrases are found in Greek letters referring to the letter in which they appear. So this could just be stylistic change to avoid repetition.
  • Option 2 – Some argue that this refers to different parts of the current letter. “I write” refers to the letter from that point forward, whereas “I wrote” refers to the earlier part of the letter. The main problem with this theory is that the content of these sections do not match this division of the letter.
  • Option 3 – Others argue that these sections refer to different letters. “I write” refers to this letter. “I wrote” would then refer to an earlier letter, possibly 2 John or the Gospel of John. One problem here is that 2 John and Gospel don’t seem to fit the statements. This is not fatal to this theory, as it could refer to a letter that has been lost. This is not impossible. 1 Cor 5:9, 11 seems to refer to an earlier letter and 2 Cor 2:4’s reference to “The sorrowful letter” most likely is not referring to 1 Corinthians. So it is possible that “I wrote” refers to a letter that we no longer have. However, more problematic for this theory is that much of the material in the section “I wrote” is also in this letter.
  • Option 4 – The finally possibility we will consider is that the first section was a common statement or liturgical saying that his readers knew, while the second was his re-statement of it, modified to emphasize that this this was his view. Like possibility 3, the main problem here is that we do not know of any such statement. There is also the problem of why such a common statement would start with “I write…” One possibility is that the actual statement may have said something like “the apostles write…”
  • I think that the answer is most likely either 1 or 4. I would I lean a little towards 4, since the repetition strikes me as modifying something that they already knew, but the problems with this view do trouble me. This would not have been an issue for the original recipients, but is not lost with the passage of time. However, since with both 1 and 4 the overall purpose is for emphasis, the actual answer is not all that important to understanding the intent of the passage.
• What is the significance of the Children, Fathers, and Young men?
  • The first question we need to answer is whether this refers to just three distinct groups or one overall group with two subgroups. Three distinct groups would at first seem the most-straight forward. In this view the three groups are either age groups, or they are metaphorical groups. If age groups they could refer to physical age, or spiritual age, i.e., how long they have been in the faith. Others however think they may be metaphorical in that they refer to the qualities of the stages of life that all Christians should have. The main problem with all of these views is that children, fathers, young men, is a very unusual; one would expect either fathers, young men, children; or children, young men fathers.
  • Because of the unusual order, some have suggested that this is really one overall group with two subgroups. The overall group is children, and thus refers to all believers. Within this group there are two subgroups: Fathers and Young men. As with 3 distinct age groups, the two subgroups could be either actual or spiritual age. The advantage is that this would address the problem of order. Other suggest that, rather than age groups, this is a reference to leadership where Father = elders and Young men = deacons. Still other suggest that Fathers = Leaders while young men = rest of the church.
  • I believe that children refers to all Christians, while Fathers = Leaders and young men = rest of the church.

12 – I am writing to you, little children,
because your sins have been forgiven
on account of his name.

– Clause 1.1

little children – τεκνία

– This is John’s normal way of referring to believers. For example, in his gospel 1:12 says, He gave them authority to become God’s children. In his letters he writes …hear that my children are living according to the truth (3 John 1:4); (2 John 1:1) The chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; (1 John 2:1) My little children, I’m writing these things to …

your sins have been forgiven

– This is similar to 1:9 If we make it our habit to confess our sins, in his faithful righteousness he forgives us for those sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness. But there is a key differences. forgives in 1:9 was presented as hypothetical because of the if/then construction of the statement. Here, however, there is nothing hypothetical about it. The word translated have been forgiven (ἀφέωνται) is in the perfect tense. It refers to a completed action with ongoing results.

on account of his name (διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ)

– It is through the name of Jesus that we are saved. This is one of those phrases that Christians say but often do not think very much about. In the ancient world, the concept of Name equaled power and authority. For example, look at how name is used in Acts 4:7 They made Peter and John stand in front of them and began asking, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” We can know we have been forgiven because it rest on the power and authority of God.

To further expand on the concept of name and how we often skip over well known verses, consider Matt 28:19-20, which says, Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything that I’ve commanded you. This is often seen as just a verse on missions, but in reality the command here is not to go, but to make disciples. Another issue here is the word Baptizing, which is a transliteration of the word βαπτίζοντες: to wash, purify, or immerse. Since it transliterated, most see this as the ritual of baptism. But is that what is intended here? Consider the verse if we translated it using the meaning of immersion:

Therefore, as you go, disciple people in all nations, immersing them in the power and authority of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything that I’ve commanded you.

What could be a better description of making disciples than to immerse them in the power and authority of God while teaching them to obey his commandments?

Questions and Discussion.

The discussion this week centered on the question of loving and hating our brother. What does this really ask us to do? One interesting question was what about helping a brother or sister, when you really do not want to or when you still hold a grudge against them? While of course it would be better to always act with a pure heart, I think the question really comes down to why, in the end, did you act? Acting out of obedience to God, even a reluctant obedience, is still obedience. I think it is safe to say that obedience is always better than disobedience.

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

Footnotes:

[1] ISV : lives

Week 18:  Jan 29, 2012

–          Last time we saw how John was emphasizing that to love God was to Obey God’s commandments.   This naturally raises the question which commandment are we to keep?   Starting in verse 2:7 John answers this question.

Study

a.      Expansion: Love One Another (2:7:11)

i.      The commandment to Love  (2:7-8)

7 – Dear friends, I am not writing to you a new commandment, but an old commandment that you have had from the beginning. This old commandment is the word you have heard.

Dear friends,

–          Marks another change of thought, this time an expansion on the commandments of God.

new commandment…but an old commandment…

Here John may be dealing with a charge from his opponents, i.e., that they had some new commandment or he may just be stressing that his message is grounded in the teachings of Jesus. Note change from verse 3 from plural(commandments) to singular(commandment) here. Commandment sums up the teaching of Jesus. Here it refers to    living in the light  as he himself is in the light (1:7) Which John is defining as living in truth and love. This is very similar to :

2 John 5 Dear lady, I am now requesting of you that we all continue to love one another. It is not as though I am writing to give you a new commandment, but one that we have had from the beginning.

John 13:34 I am giving you a new commandment to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.

from the beginning

–          Commandment was new when Jesus gave it. But this could also refer to the teaching of OT as well.

This old commandment is the word you have heard

–          This is what they have been taught since they came to Christ. John is stressing the continuity of the faith.   This was the teaching of Jesus, handed down to the Apostles (see the prologue v 1:1-4) and taught to them.

8 – On the other hand, I am writing to you a new commandment that is truly in him and in you. For the darkness is fading away, and the true light is already shining.

–          Yet, while an old teaching there is a sense in which it is new.  It is new in the sense that it is in Jesus and in us.  While the teaching is nothing new, and in fact is old,  the way that the teaching works itself out in our lives is new.  As 1 Cor 5:17 puts it:   Therefore, if anyone is in the Messiah, he is a new creation. Old things have disappeared, and—look!—all things have become new!

For the darkness is fading away, and the true light is already shining.

–          This is more than a distant hope.  The transforming nature of Christ’s teaching can already be seen.  John is not arguing just from abstract theology, but from the real impact Jesus had on people’s lives, and the way that it transformed them, and us.   The message of the Jesus is nothing, if it has no effect.   This is why obedience is so important.  Jesus’ teachings are not some secret that is hidden away, as the Gnostics claim, it is to be proclaimed and demonstrated in our lives.

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 2:2-2:6

Week 17: Jan 15, 2012

I have fallen a little behind in posting the class, and will try to catch up in the next few days. When we finished from the last posted class John had interrupted is refutation of the claims of his opponents to clarify that his comments on forgiveness should not be misconstrued. We do not have forgiveness so that we can sin; we have forgiveness so that we can have fellowship with God. We also have an advocate or our behalf, Jesus. In verse two John continues this thought, giving the John giving the reason Jesus can serve so effectively as our advocate.

Study

ii. Three Proposition Refuted (1:6-10)

b. Expansion: Keep His Commandments (2:1-6)

i. Jesus the Messiah is our advocate (2:1-2)

2:2 – It is he who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world’s.

It is he who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins

– atoning sacrifice

The Greek word (ἱλασμός) occurs in NT only here and in 1 John 4:10, and there is some dispute over how to translate this word. In secular literature this word refers to a means of placating an offended person, which could be translated with the word Propitiation. Some scholars, however, argue that in the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word has a somewhat different meaning. Instead of focusing on appeasing the offended person, these scholars argue that it focuses on the removal or cancelling of sin, and as such means expiation more than propitiation. Not too surprising, other scholars strongly disagree, arguing that it does have the meaning of propitiation in some places of the OT.

So how should we settle? As always, we look to the context. Here the context is Jesus as our advocate before God and this would point to propitiation, the appeasing the offended person, more than expiation, the removal of sin. The meaning here is that Jesus’ death on the cross, renders God favorable to pardoning our sins. Yet this controversy may help explain the passage in 1:9 earlier and the meaning of Forgive and Cleanse. Forgive would point to propitiation, cleanse to expiation and like in 1:9, and in this light both meaning may be in view here. Thus the translation of atoning sacrifice

atoning – for sin – expiation

sacrifice – to God – propitiation

Jesus is both or advocate and our atoning sacrifice. He pleads before the Father on our behalf based on what he has done. However, it is important not to push the metaphor of the court room too far. There is nothing here to say that God is reluctant to forgive our sins. On the contrary, in John 10:30 Jesus said, “I and the father are one.” John 3:16 tells us that “God so loved the world that he gave is one and only son.”

– but also for the whole world’s

Christ serves this role no just for John’ readers (i.e., Christian) but for the whole/complete (ὅλου) world (τοῦ κόσμου). This is one of the reasons I question the doctrine of Limited Atonement, which holds that Christ died only for the elect. But if Christ died for all, does this then teach universal salvation? No. This is in the context of 1:9 which said, “If we make it our habit to confess our sins.” Christ serves the role of advocate for the entire world. If anyone in the world seeks forgiveness through Christ, they will be forgiven. But we must seek forgiveness to be forgiven.

What does this say about our duty to forgive? Are we required to forgive those who do not seek forgiveness? This may run counter to a lot of teaching on forgiveness, but I believe our duty to forgive is balanced by an offending parties duty to seek forgiveness. We have a duty to offer forgiveness, as Christ died for the whole world. But as with salvation, that forgiveness is not complete until it is truly sought.

ii. To Know him is to Obey him (2:3-6)

1. Statement (2:3)
a. Claim (2:4)
b. Counter-Claim (2:5)
2. Restatement (2:6)

Having clarified the nature of forgiveness, John now returns to the claims of his opponents, in this case that they know God. Notice the emphasis that John’s structure gives this claim. This is a very key claim and central to John’s overall argument.

To understand this claim, it is important to understand the discussion to this point, which has centered on the question: who is correct. It is important to remember that 1 John was written to a church that had undergone a church split where a heretical faction has broken away. Both sides claim to have the truth, and to know God. Individual members probably had friends in both camps, so how could they tell which side was correct?

2:3 — This is how we can be sure that we have come to know him: if we continually keep his commandments.

– John answers the implied question of which side is correct. Again, a key claim of the opponents was to know God (see the next verse) and this was a key claim of Gnosticism. Yet for John this is not just intellectual knowledge about God. To know God is to be in a relationship with Him.

if we continually keep his commandments.

– This is a common theme for John. In John 14:21-24 the theme is to love God is to obey him. We cannot be said to be in a relationship with God, if we do not obey him.

2:4 – The person who says, “I have come to know him,” but does not continually keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth has no place in that person.

– John now returns to the specific claims of his opponents, in this case the claim that they know him. At the core of agnosticism was the claim to have a secret knowledge of God.

but does not continually keep his commandments is a liar

– How can we claim to know Jesus if we do not follow him. This is a much more powerful argument than it may at first seem. How can we really truly believe that Jesus is God incarnate; that he died for our sins; that we are in a relationship with him, and yet then ignore what he says? Every time we sin, we in effect deny that we know Jesus.

and the truth has no place in that person.

– This is an emphasis of the previous point, but it is more than just an emphasis. In John 14:6 Jesus says “I am the way, the truth and the life.” Jesus is the truth, and to have truth, secret truth, was a key claim of proto-Gnostics. So this is more than just a mere emphasis of the point. They have neither the truth nor Jesus.

2:5 – But whoever continually keeps his commandments is the kind of person in whom God’s love has truly been perfected. This is how we can be sure that we are in union with God:[1]

– Having dealt with the claim, John now turns to his counter claim. Note that John as changed from “If we” to “the kind of person” (ἐν τούτῳ) Lit: in this one. John is not talking about particular people but rather a goal that we should strive for. The person who is willing to be molded and shaped by the love of God; that person is the one who will follow his commandments.

has truly been perfected.

– The word for perfected (τετελείωται) means to finish, to reach a goal, to perfect. God’s work in us will be completed when we continually follow his commandment. John is not saying that we will reach this perfection. In fact John has already made it clear that we will not. Earlier in he wrote, “If we say that we do not have any sin, we are deceiving ourselves (1:7) But this is the goal we should strive for; the kind of person, we should strive to be.

This is how we can be sure that we are in union with God

– John is not saying that we must reach perfection, to be sure. Rather that God is working in us. That we are striving to follow his commandments.

2:6 – The one who says that he abides in him must live the same way he himself lived.

John now returns to a restatement of his starting principle stated in verse 3, though here it is a summary statement and serves as an emphasis of this point. This was also one of the key messages of the Gospel of John.

Week 16:  Jan  8, 2012

We return to the study of First John. Having refuted the second claim, John now turns to the correct teaching.

Study

ii.            Three Proposition Refuted (1:6-10)

1:9 –  If we make it our habit to confess our sins, in his faithful righteousness he forgives us for those sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

–          confess here is present active, which indicates an ongoing process. Confession is not just something we do when we are saved; it is something that we continually do as we seek forgiveness for sin.

in his faithful righteousness

–          The forgiveness that follows confession stems from both the faithfulness of God and his righteousness.   He is faithful, and so forgives us because he said he would.   That he is righteous shows that he can, as Jesus paid the price for our sins.

he forgives us for those sins

–          Some see a significance in the word Forgives (ἀφῇ).  It basically means “to leave” but takes on a variety of meaning depending on the context.   In terms of locations such as a city, it means to leave that location.   But when used of an object such as a book, it means to leave it in place.  In reference to people it means to send them way or to let them go.  For financial transactions it refers to canceling, or forgiving a debt.   In terms of sin, it means simply to pardon or forgive.  But his range of meaning does show why context is so important when determining the meaning of a word.  One certainly would not want to use the meaning for objects, i.e., to leave in place, in this context.

cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

–          The passage says that God not only forgives us, but that He also cleanses us.   Most commentators see cleanse and forgive as the same.   If so then the use of both in this passage is a form of emphasis

I, however, think there is a distinction here. John’s key premise is that God is Light and can have no darkness.  God not only forgives us, he cleanses us and it is this cleansing that allows us to have fellowship with him.  This is why confession of sin is so important.

I also think there is an implied argument here:

Since the opponents did not think that they had sin, there was no confession

Since there was no confession, there was no forgiveness

Since there was no forgiveness, they were still in darkness

Since they were still in darkness, they had no fellowship with God.

How does the teaching of Light and darkness line up with the modern Churches view of sin? This is one of those balancing acts.  Sin is a serious matter, yet the ability to confess and be forgiven has lead some to the false belief that it is no big deal.  Yet if we focus too much on sin, we miss the blessings of forgiveness.  Only though constant pray can we keep the correct balance.

1:10 –  If we say that we have never sinned, we make him a liar and his word has no place in us.

–          John now moves on to the Claim #3 : we have never sinned

With this claim, it is unclear whether this is an actual claim made by John’s opponents, or if this is a summary of the other two claims.  In support of it being a summary, the claim we have never sinned is very close to Claim #2 that we do not have any sin. On the other hand, it could be a response to the implied argument;  I need no forgiveness because I have never sinned.  While the distinction would have been important to the people to which John wrote,  it is largely irrelevant to us.  We are not caught up that particular controversy, and instead are looking for the universal applications that apply to us and this is the same for both understandings.

–          Refutation #3: we make him a liar

The him here is God.  To say that we have never sinned is to call God a liar.

1 Kings 8:46   When they sin against you—because there isn’t a single human being who doesn’t sin…

Isa 53:6  All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned, each of us, to his own way;

Rom 3:23  since all have sinned and continue to fall short of God’s glory

his word has no place in us.

–          One cannot be in fellowship with God and deny his word.   To deny sin is to deny the need for forgiveness and to deny the reason for Jesus’ death on the cross.   For someone to do this, it is no wonder that John would say that his word (λόγος)  has no place in them.

b.      Expansion: Keep His Commandments (2:1-6)

i.            Jesus the Messiah is our advocate (2:1-2)

2:1 – My little children, I’m writing these things to you so that you might not sin. Yet if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus, the Messiah[1], one who is righteous.

My little children

–          John seems to mark transition/emphasis with such phrases, as he does here.   Before going on to give the third counter teaching, he wants to make sure that he is being clear about the nature of forgiveness.

I’m writing these things to you

–          Note the change from 1:4 – We are writing these things. While 1 John 1:4 referred to the writings of the eyewitness, i.e., the New Testament, here these things, is referring to what he has just written.

so that you might not sin.

–          One possible conclusion of the teaching John has just given is that it is ok to sin; after all we can always seek forgiveness.  Paul realized this as well after giving similar teaching to the church at Rome.  Thus in Romans 6:1-2 Paul rhetorically asks,  What should we say, then? Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? Of course not! Likewise, here, John points out that forgiveness of sin is not a license to sin, and this would run counter to the teaching of God’s Word.  We do not have forgiveness so that we can sin.  We have forgiveness of sin, so we can have relationship with God.

Having clarified that this is not a license to sin, John proceeds on to Counter – Teaching #3 :

Yet if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus, the Messiah

–          The word for advocate (παράκλητον) here is the same word as in John 14:16 referring to the Holy Spirit.  It literally means to call alongside, to encourage, to exhort.  It is one of those words for which there is no single English word.  It can refer to a lawyer, but the concept here is far more than just legal counsel.  It refers to someone who really cared for you well-being.   It can refer to a counselor, or a comforter, or helper, but these are likewise too limited.  You can think of this a as dear friend who is your lawyer, who counsels, comforts and helps you. In the context here, the lawyer/advocate part has the primary the focus.  As Jesus will argue for our forgiveness before the Father

one who is righteous

–          Jesus can take this role because he is righteous. We are unrighteous and have no basis upon which to ask forgiveness, but Jesus can ask on our behalf.   Jesus died for our sins, and yet remains righteous because he is infinite.  Regardless of how many people will have ever lived, or how much sin they have committed, it will in the end be finite amount.  When heaven and earth pass away, there will have been a certain number of people who committed a certain number of sins.  However big it will be, it will be finite, but Jesus is infinite.  However big humanities sin, his righteousness will overwhelm it as drop of black ink, dropping in a white ocean the size of the universe.  Thus he can bear our sins and still be righteous.  It is on this basis that he will ask for our forgiveness and we can be assured that we will be forgiven.

Next week will pick up with 1 John 2:2.

If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.

See here for references and more background on the class.

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version^®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org

Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.

1 2:1 Or Christ